Ed Markey's Curious Vote Explained

My new senator, Ed Markey, is getting a little of the old nyah-nyah for voting "Present" yesterday on the vote to authorize the making of war in Syria. I admit, I was briefly bumfuzzled over it myself. (If he does the same thing when the full Senate votes on the resolution, then we're going to have a problem.) Markey never has been one for ducking tough votes. Then, I thought about it, and I read his rationale behind it.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Markey said he cast his equivocal vote because he wants more time to analyze the situation. He said in an interview that the resolution was written too broadly and allowed for the potential that the United States would become far more entangled in the Syrian conflict. "My one concern is that we not get on a slippery slope - that we understand all of the steps that this action could lead to," he said. "It's about the resolution being too broad. It's about the need for more information. It's about my worry about a greater involvement in Syria."Asked why he did not just oppose the authorization, as did some of his colleagues who had similar concerns, he said, "A no vote would have indicated I had sufficient information on which to base the decision. Which I did not."

My own thoughts on the proposed Great Boom Boom are fairly well-known, but I have to admit, I think Markey's pretty close to what a lot of Americans are thinking about this whole thing: namely, that it's a perfect time to apply that ancient -- and sadly underused -- political principle defined as Fuck If I Know What To Do. As it happens, I think if you have to apply FIIKWTD, the best thing to do is nothing. Enlightened minds can disagree, but I'd rather have Markey's caution than the unwarranted certitude expressed by the administration, to say nothing of the unwarranted warmongering glee of Senator Angry Grampy and his sidekick, Senator Huckleberry J. Butchfella.